pensions core course 2013: expanding coverage - recent developments
Post on 11-Jul-2015
93 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
EXPANDING COVERAGE: RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
Robert Palacios, World Bank
Pension Core Course
April 2013
The policy challenge 2
LICs – 17% MICs – 51% TSEs – 66%
The policy challenge 3
Decades of stagnant coverage – failure to expand
traditional SI, payroll tax-financed model
Falling coverage in Eastern Europe and FSU
Increasing concern as schemes mature and require
high payroll tax rates that may further distort the
labor market
Aging populations that will put pressure on both
health and pensions (IMF 2011, 2012).
Emerging institutional responses 4
ILO’s Social Floor (UN, DFID)
Santiago Levy’s analysis and proposal
World Bank
social pensions and MDCs covered in SP strategy
MDC book
Social insurance and labor markets book
upcoming LAC book
upcoming ECA flagship report on pensions
Emerging responses on the ground 5
Expansion of social pensions
Chile, India, Nepal, Mexico, Panama
New experiments with matching contributions
China, India, Turkey
Subsidized health insurance premia for the poor
Colombia, Georgia, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Turkey
Remains to be seen what happens as ECA country
pension coverage begins to decline
6
Country
types
PPP$YCAP Coverage ratio Ratio 20-59/60+
population
LIC >4500 17% 7.6
MIC 4500-15,000 51% 6.3
HIC 15,000+ 90% 3.4
TSE 2000-20,000 66% 3.7
7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
1 2 3 4 5
Quintile
% o
f e
mp
loy
ed
co
ntr
ibu
tin
g
Uruguay
El Salvador
India
Characteristics of target population 8
Variable income flows
Low savings capacity
Low exposure to formal financial sector
Transient career path (rural-urban migrants)
High degree of self-insurance (i.e., lack of various types of insurance coverage)
High discount rate/liquidity preference
Higher mortality/morbidity (relative to covered)
Few opportunities for formal jobs (evasion issue minor)
Strategies for system design 9
Minimize transaction costs
Allow small and variable contribution amounts and flexible timing
Harness existing groups where possible
Use IT to lower transaction costs on front end (banking correspondents, mobile payments)
Use formal pension system infrastructure where feasible
Simple investment types, reliance on defaults
Effective outreach
Credible institutions must participate on provider side
Pull factor may require paying providers’ incentives for enrolment (especially at outset)
Strategies for system design 10
Affordability and incentives
Affordable contribution levels
Link with health/disability insurance where feasible
Voluntary pensions in rich countries exist due to tax
treatment, but irrelevant for informal sector workers – a
substantial matching contribution is needed to overcome
high discount rate and liquidity preference
Age of withdrawal must be in line with realistic
biological deterioration
Matching contributions 11
MCs can be targeted and capped (e.g., India matches up
to 1000 rupees per year for informal sector workers)
1:1 match provides an immediate 100% return
Can be bundled with insurance (eg. Health) reducing
the need for liquid precautionary savings
In practice, there are a number of countries planning or
starting MDCs, but not enough experience to have
robust empirical results
China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Dominican Republic
Steps in setting key parameters for MDC
MCT
TBL = x % of MCL
CR/PL = $
AP = % of PL
SR = 1 - AP
MCT – minimum consumption target
TBL – target benefit level
CR – contribution rate
PL – premium level
AP – ability to pay
SR – subsidy rate
CT – coverage target
BR – budget requirement
CT - # workers BR - $
How affordable is the MDC to workers?
13
Example: Based on a target benefit just above the Indian poverty line, the contribution required with a 1:1 match is 5% of income for decile 3
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
3 4 5 6 7 8
decile
% o
f in
co
me
How much take up can you buy?
14
Duflo et. al. (2005) tested the take up elasticity for US low income workers, but similar studies have not been done for developing countries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 50 100 150 200 250
% t
ak
e u
p
% matching contribution
How much take up can you buy? 15
Age should be linked to target group 16
Some limited empirical evidence supports the
intuition that the life expectancy differential by
income level is greater in LICs (eg., Bannerjee and
Duflo (2005) and Pal and Palacios (2010))
Age of withdrawal should take shorter life
expectancy of target population into account
Age can also be coordinated with social pension
eligibility age
Age parameters 17
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
PPP adjusted $ income per capita
life
exp
ecta
ncy a
t ag
e 6
0
Parameters must be consistent with fisc
18
Rough estimate of MDC cost
Set target pension at 40% YCAP
Calculate required total contribution for full career 10% of
YCAP
Set match at 1:1 (5% of YCAP from government)
With labor force/population (40%)* share in informal sector
(80%) * take up (50%) = 0.8% of GDP
This can be reduced to 0.4% of GDP if targeted to the
bottom half of the informal sector; (this yields a 40%
increase in coverage or 8 percentage points)
Match can be reduced subject to fiscal constraints
MDCs and social pensions
19
MDCs take a long time to mature and have no impact on old age poverty; it does nothing for the current or soon to be old
MDC policy and social pensions can be linked and harmonized to achieve clear objectives over time
Social pension dependence will be greater for older workers and gradually be replaced by dependence of younger workers on MDCs
SP can be set at absolute poverty level and indexed to inflation while MDC parameters linked to YCAP; prefunding as population ages
Set target pension at 40% YCAP
Calculate required total contribution for full career 10% of YCAP
Set match at 1:1 (5% of YCAP from government)
With labor force/population (40%)* share in informal sector (80%) * take up (50%) = 0.8% of GDP
This can be reduced to 0.4% of GDP if targeted to the bottom half of the informal sector; in this case, coverage would be doubled
Match can be reduced subject to fiscal constraints
Social pension only
20
0
.25
.5
.75
1
1.25
Gro
ss r
ep
lace
me
nt ra
te
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Individual income, proportion of average income per capita
Contributory Social
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Gro
ss r
ela
tive p
en
sio
n leve
l
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Individual income, proportion of average income per capita
Contributory Social
Here there is complete reliance on a social pension indexed to income with no MDC
Social pension and MDC
21
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5G
ross r
ela
tive p
en
sio
n leve
l
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Individual income, proportion of average income per capita
Contributory Social
Here, the social pension indexed to prices, with MDC parameters indexed to income
0
.25
.5
.75
1
1.25
Gro
ss r
ep
lace
me
nt ra
te
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Individual income, proportion of average income per capita
Contributory Social
22
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61
% o
f G
DP
YEARS
Costs
MDC w/SP
SP only
Concluding thoughts
23
MDCs are being considered or started in a number of countries with low coverage
MDC policies alone do not address the current coverage gap – social pensions can play that role in the short run until MDC matures
Careful analysis of fiscal tradeoffs between the two types of program can only be done with long term projections and studies of take up elasticity
It may be especially attractive in countries with DC schemes for formal sector workers to reduce start up costs and allow for a seamless system
top related